BYU's Honor Code?

[Kuan]

Im not sure how many here follow college basketball but if you do, you'll probably know about this deal. BYU has had its best season ever in the history of the school, but then when they find out that their best rebounder broke the honor code, they suspend him for the rest of the season.

What do you guys make of this whole deal?

[Kuan]

I managed just fine, and so did everybody I knew. Premarital sex is a rather stupid and dangerous thing to do, y'know. It's especially dangerous for the women--and that's just biology, not culture bias. I have often had the feeling that if men could get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less messin' around out there, contraceptives or no contraceptives.

What about people who simply don't want to marry? In the USA I think marriage is a really important thing legally but in my country for example you can be single and be... just fine. Premarital sex is as dangeous and stupid as marital sex if you know who you're doing it with. Basically, that you marry someone won't add or substract any STD.

There is a higher chance of STD's when you have premarital sex. When your married your probably only doing it with one other person, if its pre-marital, its possibly with multiple others. Plus you dont know who they have done it with and ect. Not only that, but at least in the culture im in, guys run out on girls they get pregnant all the time. The chances of the father running out on you is lower when your married.

Not only that, but children born to single parents are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

[Ragna]

I managed just fine, and so did everybody I knew. Premarital sex is a rather stupid and dangerous thing to do, y'know. It's especially dangerous for the women--and that's just biology, not culture bias. I have often had the feeling that if men could get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less messin' around out there, contraceptives or no contraceptives.

What about people who simply don't want to marry? In the USA I think marriage is a really important thing legally but in my country for example you can be single and be... just fine. Premarital sex is as dangeous and stupid as marital sex if you know who you're doing it with. Basically, that you marry someone won't add or substract any STD.

There is a higher chance of STD's when you have premarital sex. When your married your probably only doing it with one other person, if its pre-marital, its possibly with multiple others. Plus you dont know who they have done it with and ect. Not only that, but at least in the culture im in, guys run out on girls they get pregnant all the time. The chances of the father running out on you is lower when your married.

Not only that, but children born to single parents are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

Nice red herrings, that is why I explicitly said "if you know the person". And premarital sex needn't include sex with multiple partners, I never said that. And I never talked about age, so if an unmarried woman wants to have a child it's up to her.

So in your culture they don't use contraceptives? I never talked about age again, so that about the father is a stereotypical situation which I was not referring to. I'm arguing whether it's stupid and dangerous for, for example, two 30-year-old unmarried friends who know each other to have casual sex. Are you defending it is as well? If this situation is OK to you then we agree.

A children not born in marital sex doesn't mean it doesn't have two parents. But it doesn't need two parents to be OK, that's probably a situation that wouldn't have come up if it wasn't socially badly regarded or if it wasn't mixed with the factor that most children with one parent are children with a teenager mother, a situation which again I wasn't referring to.

[Kuan]

I managed just fine, and so did everybody I knew. Premarital sex is a rather stupid and dangerous thing to do, y'know. It's especially dangerous for the women--and that's just biology, not culture bias. I have often had the feeling that if men could get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less messin' around out there, contraceptives or no contraceptives.

What about people who simply don't want to marry? In the USA I think marriage is a really important thing legally but in my country for example you can be single and be... just fine. Premarital sex is as dangeous and stupid as marital sex if you know who you're doing it with. Basically, that you marry someone won't add or substract any STD.

There is a higher chance of STD's when you have premarital sex. When your married your probably only doing it with one other person, if its pre-marital, its possibly with multiple others. Plus you dont know who they have done it with and ect. Not only that, but at least in the culture im in, guys run out on girls they get pregnant all the time. The chances of the father running out on you is lower when your married.

Not only that, but children born to single parents are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

Nice red herrings, that is why I explicitly said "if you know the person". And premarital sex needn't include sex with multiple partners, I never said that. And I never talked about age, so if an unmarried woman wants to have a child it's up to her.

I never said it had to, check my wording. I said possibly. Yes, it is up to the women whether she wants a child or not, but I think adoption would be the better alternative.

So in your culture they don't use contraceptives? I never talked about age again, so that about the father is a stereotypical situation which I was not referring to. I'm arguing whether it's stupid and dangerous for, for example, two 30-year-old unmarried friends who know each other to have casual sex. Are you defending it is as well? If this situation is OK to you then we agree.

The thing about the father is a very common ocurrence. I still dont understand your position regarding this. Yes, contraceptives are used in my culture but they there are times when such dont work. At this point im not going to lie, I am the product of a messed up educational system. Sex Ed wasnt taught in depth, I have no clue what a contraceptive is and I havent needed to know till now. What I said regarding it is what I remember from Sex Ed.

A children not born in marital sex doesn't mean it doesn't have two parents. But it doesn't need two parents to be OK, that's probably a situation that wouldn't have come up if it wasn't socially badly regarded or if it wasn't mixed with the factor that most children with one parent are children with a teenager mother, a situation which again I wasn't referring to.

Statistics show that children born to single parent households are almost twice as likley to be involved in criminal activity. Whether that is related to the culture, or not was not found.

Maybe we should clear up our positions regarding this. I am a mormon and I believe in the mormon plan of salvation. The family is a key part of it, man and woman, and children. That being said, the only time I think a man and woman should be involved is when they commit themselves to each other. This is what I believe, I dont think casual sex is right. This is our culture and beliefs. We instill it in our programs also, such as our universities. I dont care about anyones love life, they believe what they want to, I can respect that. Yet I also think it should be mutual, we should be respected for our beliefs. We dont force anyone to go to BYU or the sister schools, but we are clear on what our expectations and standards are. If you go to BYU, expect to be held to the same standards of everyone else. Dont play the, mormon standards are to hard card. Our rules are very public, there are no hidden laws or anything.

[Ragna]

I never said it had to, check my wording. I said possibly. Yes, it is up to the women whether she wants a child or not, but I think adoption would be the better alternative.

That an alternative is better than another doesn't mean the other one is bad. However I could argue situations in the life of a woman when she isn't married yet but wants a child, in a couple or outside it, knowing the father, where adoption is unnecessary.

The thing about the father is a very common ocurrence. I still dont understand your position regarding this. Yes, contraceptives are used in my culture but they there are times when such dont work. At this point im not going to lie, I am the product of a messed up educational system. Sex Ed wasnt taught in depth, I have no clue what a contraceptive is and I havent needed to know till now. What I said regarding it is what I remember from Sex Ed.

It's normal you don't understand my position about that because I never argued about that or stated my opinion on that. I just said that non-marital sex itself, in almost the same conditions as marital sex (mutual consent, knowing the person, basically) is neither better nor worse. If you want my opinion, teenage sex is not bad itself but it needs serious cautions. Contraceptive failure is so small it shouldn't been taken into account, at least where I live, there are plenty of methods and we have had a lot of talks on the topic, even though most of the people here already knew about it.

Maybe we should clear up our positions regarding this. I am a mormon and I believe in the mormon plan of salvation. The family is a key part of it, man and woman, and children. That being said, the only time I think a man and woman should be involved is when they commit themselves to each other. This is what I believe, I dont think casual sex is right. This is our culture and beliefs. We instill it in our programs also, such as our universities. I dont care about anyones love life, they believe what they want to, I can respect that. Yet I also think it should be mutual, we should be respected for our beliefs. We dont force anyone to go to BYU or the sister schools, but we are clear on what our expectations and standards are. If you go to BYU, expect to be held to the same standards of everyone else. Dont play the, mormon standards are to hard card. Our rules are very public, there are no hidden laws or anything.

I have no idea what mormon plan of salvation is or all that, but I think what everyone does is up to them and they take the consequences. It's not to be judged by me what two people (or more!) do behind closed doors when in mutual consent, and it's neither good nor bad since my morality doesn't include judging people's sexual lives, when there is no harm or paraphilias involved it's just fine, nothing wrong about it. And I don't find any reason why a person can't choose when to reproduce if he/she so pleases without being in committed to the sexual partner (always in mutual consent), legally or formally. And about the BYU, which I wasn't really arguing, I think we agree, if you accept some rules you should follow them, or else take the consequences.

[Kuan]

I never said it had to, check my wording. I said possibly. Yes, it is up to the women whether she wants a child or not, but I think adoption would be the better alternative.

That an alternative is better than another doesn't mean the other one is bad. However I could argue situations in the life of a woman when she isn't married yet but wants a child, in a couple or outside it, knowing the father, where adoption is unnecessary.

True but I usually take the better alternatives. Its just much more logical. (Finished watching Star Trek.) I think more adoptions by single mothers who want a child is best. Also considering the overpopulation and such, but this is off topic.

The thing about the father is a very common ocurrence. I still dont understand your position regarding this. Yes, contraceptives are used in my culture but they there are times when such dont work. At this point im not going to lie, I am the product of a messed up educational system. Sex Ed wasnt taught in depth, I have no clue what a contraceptive is and I havent needed to know till now. What I said regarding it is what I remember from Sex Ed.

It's normal you don't understand my position about that because I never argued about that or stated my opinion on that. I just said that non-marital sex itself, in almost the same conditions as marital sex (mutual consent, knowing the person, basically) is neither better nor worse. If you want my opinion, teenage sex is not bad itself but it needs serious cautions. Contraceptive failure is so small it shouldn't been taken into account, at least where I live, there are plenty of methods and we have had a lot of talks on the topic, even though most of the people here already knew about it.

Yes it is almost the same conditions. When your married there is commitment involved, which is why the father running out on a child is very common. To me, dont get involved with sex unless your willing to commit yourselves to each other.

Maybe we should clear up our positions regarding this. I am a mormon and I believe in the mormon plan of salvation. The family is a key part of it, man and woman, and children. That being said, the only time I think a man and woman should be involved is when they commit themselves to each other. This is what I believe, I dont think casual sex is right. This is our culture and beliefs. We instill it in our programs also, such as our universities. I dont care about anyones love life, they believe what they want to, I can respect that. Yet I also think it should be mutual, we should be respected for our beliefs. We dont force anyone to go to BYU or the sister schools, but we are clear on what our expectations and standards are. If you go to BYU, expect to be held to the same standards of everyone else. Dont play the, mormon standards are to hard card. Our rules are very public, there are no hidden laws or anything.

I have no idea what mormon plan of salvation is or all that, but I think what everyone does is up to them and they take the consequences. It's not to be judged by me what two people (or more!) do behind closed doors when in mutual consent, and it's neither good nor bad since my morality doesn't include judging people's sexual lives, when there is no harm or paraphilias involved it's just fine, nothing wrong about it. And I don't find any reason why a person can't choose when to reproduce if he/she so pleases without being in committed to the sexual partner (always in mutual consent), legally or formally. And about the BYU, which I wasn't really arguing, I think we agree, if you accept some rules you should follow them, or else take the consequences.

Exactly, the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether except for their tax exemptions and such. They shouldn't define marriage or who can have sexual relations. Let everyone live their own life.

[Ragna]

True but I usually take the better alternatives. Its just much more logical. (Finished watching Star Trek.) I think more adoptions by single mothers who want a child is best. Also considering the overpopulation and such, but this is off topic.

I can think of situations where adoption is unnecessary, as I said above - which means it's not the best option then. Further, as I said, if someone wants to reproduce biologically it's up to them how and in what context they do it (no harm involved, mutual consent, ...etc. of course). There are a lot of good of single mothers and fathers. If this situation gets more normal or at least better accepted, I'm sure the percentages you said would renormalize. Again I'm talking about adults, not careless teenage mothers.

Yes it is almost the same conditions. When your married there is commitment involved, which is why the father running out on a child is very common. To me, dont get involved with sex unless your willing to commit yourselves to each other.

And to me, do sex whenever you please (consensual, no harm), and have a child whenever you please (the same) if you can bear it. Sex and having children are two separate concepts for me. And sex itself, especially with protection, is something much more general than what is done at a marriage. It doesn't even need love to begin with. And of course some marriages will have less love than some non-married lovers, it depends on people.

Exactly, the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether except for their tax exemptions and such. They shouldn't define marriage or who can have sexual relations. Let everyone live their own life.

A wonderful paragraph.

[Kuan]

True but I usually take the better alternatives. Its just much more logical. (Finished watching Star Trek.) I think more adoptions by single mothers who want a child is best. Also considering the overpopulation and such, but this is off topic.

I can think of situations where adoption is unnecessary, as I said above - which means it's not the best option then. Further, as I said, if someone wants to reproduce biologically it's up to them how and in what context they do it (no harm involved, mutual consent, ...etc. of course). There are a lot of good of single mothers and fathers. If this situation gets more normal or at least better accepted, I'm sure the percentages you said would renormalize. Again I'm talking about adults, not careless teenage mothers.

If they are adults, I would guess that they are probably involved to some degree in a stable relationship. It probably isnt a one night stand, they probably have some degree of commitment.

Could you enlighten me with the times where adoption is unnecessary?

And to me, do sex whenever you please (consensual, no harm), and have a child whenever you please (the same) if you can bear it. Sex and having children are two separate concepts for me. And sex itself, especially with protection, is something much more general than what is done at a marriage. It doesn't even need love to begin with. And of course some marriages will have less love than some non-married lovers, it depends on people.

Culture shock maybe? At least for me. I hold a very fundamental view of sex and marriage. I disagree with your position but thats the most I will do.

A wonderful paragraph.

Interesting that we both have a different view but come to the same conclusion.

[Ragna]

If they are adults, I would guess that they are probably involved to some degree in a stable relationship. It probably isnt a one night stand, they probably have some degree of commitment.

Could you enlighten me with the times where adoption is unnecessary?

The degree of commitment can be relatively low, they can be friends or friends with benefits. And the commitment is a completely open one, as I said using contraceptives makes the transmission of STD's almost unexistent here if you use them properly, it's not something to take into account.

Adoption is unnecessary in cases where there's a couple but not married, or when a woman asks for in vitro fertilization with sperm from donors. Lesbians also use this a lot. Also, gays and also hetero men who use surrogate mothers is another example (altruistic or commercial, where they are legal), although this is more commonly used by women who can't bear children in unfertile couples.

[Kuan]

If they are adults, I would guess that they are probably involved to some degree in a stable relationship. It probably isnt a one night stand, they probably have some degree of commitment.

Could you enlighten me with the times where adoption is unnecessary?

The degree of commitment can be relatively low, they can be friends or friends with benefits. And the commitment is a completely open one, as I said using contraceptives makes the transmission of STD's almost unexistent here if you use them properly, it's not something to take into account.

Adoption is unnecessary in cases where there's a couple but not married, or when a woman asks for in vitro fertilization with sperm from donors. Lesbians also use this a lot. Also, gays and also hetero men who use surrogate mothers is another example (altruistic or commercial, where they are legal), although this is more commonly used by women who can't bear children in unfertile couples.

I still think adoption is the better option. Consider the overpopulation of the earth, the children around the world suffering from malnutrition and ect. Instead of bringing new life into the world, I think it would be best to take care of those already here.

[dianaiad]

I managed just fine, and so did everybody I knew. Premarital sex is a rather stupid and dangerous thing to do, y'know. It's especially dangerous for the women--and that's just biology, not culture bias. I have often had the feeling that if men could get pregnant, there'd be a whole lot less messin' around out there, contraceptives or no contraceptives.

What about people who simply don't want to marry? In the USA I think marriage is a really important thing legally but in my country for example you can be single and be... just fine. Premarital sex is as dangerous and stupid as marital sex if you know who you're doing it with. Basically, that you marry someone won't add or substract any STD. And it's not bad for a woman to have a baby outside marriage if she so wishes, that is a religious bias.

Oh, FORGET 'religious bias.' Throw that out.

Look at the statistics for women who give birth out of wedlock, and for children with single mothers...whether they gave birth out of wedlock or were divorced.

These women and children have a MUCH harder time, financially, than those children who are in two parent households.

In fact, statistics show that single parent households (fatherless households most often) mean the following:
the mothers are:
*poorer
*more likely to be clinically depressed, suffer stress and other emotional/psychological problems
*more likely to suffer from health problems unrelated to depression
*more likely to have problems interacting with their children.

the fathers (not present) are:
*at risk of losing contact with their children
*more likely to engage in high risk behavior and have health problems.

Children living without their biological fathers are:
*more likely to live in poverty
*have more trouble in school
*have a higher risk of health problems
*at greater risk for physical, emotional or sexual abuse
*more likely to run away from home.

Teenagers living without their biological fathers are:
*more likely to have health problems
*more likely to become teenaged parents
*more likely to 'offend" (break the law in some way)
*more likely to smoke
*more likely to drink alcohol
*more likely to use drugs
*more likely to play truant from school
*more likely to be excluded from school
*more likely to drop out of school

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Experiments.pdf

There isn't, as far as I have been able to tell, a single study out there that shows that single parenting is better than two parent households--for either parent or child.

Pre-marital sex puts the woman at risk for getting pregnant; no method of contraception is 100% effective, not one--not even two used together. There is always a risk....

And yes, there is the issue of STD's, as well--some of the nastier ones are 'symptomless' in one sex or the other, which causes major problems down the road. None of the precautions one can take against them are 100% effective, either.

The legal system certainly understands the risk; anyone who tests positive for AIDS and afterwards is prosecuted for prostitution, that AIDS diagnosis makes the crime a felony, not a misdemeanor. No matter what precautions were taken.

So, while religions tend to be against pre-marital sex, consider; given the negative consequences of giving birth out of wedlock, is pre-marital sex a bad idea because religions are biased against it---or could it be that religions are biased against it because it's just plain a bad idea?